Tag Archives: Sarah Levison

I thought the title of this series “Mall-itics” was kind of catchy, and finally the politics of the mall came out during the Mall Redevelopment meeting of June 16th at the Public Works Facility. Too put it lightly, the fur was flying.I attended this meeting, and the first meeting, and honestly I didn’t expect much in the way of fireworks. But there was a full house with Councilmembers Mary Blue and Karen Benker in attendance, along with city staff, the consultants, and quite a few of Panattoni staff. It was standing room only, may I suggest next time it’s done in council chambers?As you may have seen, the previous three parts of this is about the politics brewing under the surface that weren’t getting much if any local media attention. I don’t usually send my articles on to city council members or the Times Call, occasionally, but rarely. Sometimes it feels like I’m writing into a vacuum, but occasionally I hear my words echoed back to me. Intentionally or by total coincidence, it doesn’t matter. Either someone read or heard what I said, or more likely, I tapped into a perception or a mood of the community. For instance, in Pt. 1 I spoke of a perceived “bloc” on city council. I’m not shocked or surprised by much, but I was fairly a little of both when Mary Blue (who continues to impress with her version of the “Straight Talk Express”) let fly with her frank comments about other members of council. She started by apologizing that what she was about to say was ” definitely political“, and some of her comments were covered in the Times-Call article. But she also said she hadn’t heard anything contradictory from the developer and pointed out that she heard ” tremendous openness to your comments and your ideas” from Panattoni. But the three members who voted against the mall ( Levison, McCoy and Hansen), weren’t there and appear to not be listening.Something Ms. Blue said may not thrill some people: ” It’s refreshing to come to these (mall) sessions because we’re not seeing the same gripers we see every week at council“, which got a good laugh from the crowd. And it’s true, and a point I’ve been trying to make for months. We have a faction here in Longmont, you should know who they are, I only write about them constantly, who offer nothing but whining and complaining and offer no solutions. The realities of doing business, and actually having revenues to sustain a city are not their priorities. Self promotion, street renaming, church slandering, pointless marching, tin-foil for cranial enlightenment and solar hair curling, questionable campaign activities, and constant meddling and name-calling with nothing constructive – those are their priorities. But I digress, but it was nice to see Ms. Blue recognize these people for what they are.Ms. Blue said ” we are hearing the same arguments against this every single time and there’s no validity to it“, and asked ” where were they getting these ideas?” I was equally surprised when Ms. Blue named the three councilmembers against this project. I figured Ms. Benker would have to weigh in and defend the other three, and she did by saying they ” gave this a lot of thought, discussed it, and they do their homework“. Look again at Pt. 2 and Pt. 3, it does not appear they’ve done their homework at all on this, they show it with their comments and questions that they are ” not with clue“, to put it nicely.What the Times Call didn’t say about the ” pit one part of council against other part of council” by Ms. Benker and Ms. Blues retort ” it already is, Karen” was the loud response via laughter by nearly everyone in the crowd. After that, there was one citizen who’s obviously against the mall redevelopment and suspicious of Panattoni, and no matter how much Ann Ricker or Will Damrath answered his questions, he wasn’t listening. I assume this is how the three councilmembers must go about their thought processes. A question he asked, and in the form of a suspicious statement by others at other meetings was basically ” why did you buy the mall in the first place if you knew it was in the condition it was in?” Mr. Damrath answered ” It’s the best piece of real estate in Longmont. As successful as our Harvest Junction was, we still had retailers saying ‘I’m going to wait and see what happens at Hover and 119’ (the mall). That’s the place to be in Longmont. It’s where the traffic is, it’s where people shop.” Probably went in one ear and out the other, similar to what probably occurs with some of our council members. More on this meeting in Pt. 5.

Next up in the antics of some members of the Longmont City Council at the June 10th meeting is some of Sarah Levisons comments. This was some fairly agenda driven questioning of Panattoni’s Will Damrath.

It’s easy to spot agenda driven games like this when the answer is more or less ignored, and when an answer is given the questioner quickly moves on to another subject. I noticed much of this wasn’t covered in the Times-Call, but as usual you can see the video on the city’s website.

First, Ms. Levison compared the mall to Target in her “extraordinary cost” line of questioning. Mr. Damrath rightly pointed out that her analogy was flawed, that Target owned its own property, as in just one tenant, they are a large public company and Panattoni builds for tenants, where Target builds for itself. That being said, Mr. Damrath said Target could’ve applied and been eligible for a special metro district.

Next was the question of rent going up on tenants due to the Tax Increment Financing, or TIF. The answer was NO, that those taxes are paid in sales taxes by people who shop there. Shouldn’t Ms. Levison already know this?

Ms. Levison made the claim Panattoni only owns 24% of the 41 acres in question, based on some conversation with a Boulder County Assessor. Mr. Damrath said 5 separate LLC’s own that, which are made up of Panattoni employee’s or investors, in other words they control 100% of that land. Again, homework not done.

Ms. Levison asked how the racetrack configuration of the ring road helps the blight conditions. Mr. Damrath said there are legal agreements with the other land owners when it comes to that road and their access. On this subject, Sean McCoy asked why the traffic pattern is the same as it is now. I saw this map in the packet, anyone can tell the map he was looking at was the current configuration, which Mr. Damrath had to point out the obvious. How embarrassing.

This next part seems a little, well, dishonest, and City Manager Gordon Pedrow stepped in on this one. Ms. Levison was asking how much city staff time and resources this whole mall thing taking up. She should’ve stopped there, but went on and said the owners at the flour mill want to get moving on their project and want to have a ” shovel in the ground in November“, and asked if there is enough staff for two projects like this at once. Mr. Pedrow answered more or less that staff wouldn’t commit to something they couldn’t handle, but more to the point of the flour mill, that her comments were contrary to what the city is aware of. He said the city hasn’t had discussions that those owners are moving that rapidly. Ms. Levison didn’t linger on this topic long, as Mr. Pedrow basically questioned the “truthiness” of her claims. Since these so-called conversations between Ms. Levison and the flour mill owners are open record, I’m sure she can provide that information.

Then Ms. Levison called someone up to the podium about a “private conversation” they had about the malls “underlying financial viability” (sorry, didn’t catch the name). I got the distinct feeling he didn’t exactly answer the way she wanted. She was trying to make the point how risky this is, to which he answered that “there is business risk in every project. Metro districts to a large extent mitigate some of the developer risk, but can’t eliminate it, that is embedded with risk.” Sounds like she had some agenda driven questions for him before the council meeting, shouldn’t that be public record, too?

Are you getting the picture of this council’s habit of time wasting? This went on for almost 30 minutes. It’s fine to ask questions, but most of this should’ve already been known by Ms. Levison, and this was just a witch hunt anyway. The only honest statement I heard was ” at this point I don’t feel that I have full confidence that I have understanding of the complete process. It’s pretty complicated actually.”

On the “extraordinary need” question, Mary Blue made the point that people are leaving Longmont to shop and go to theatres. That Longmont is viewed as a “honkey tonk” town that can’t support a theater. This got some laughter, but the sad part is that it’s true and it was nice to see Ms. Blue sift through the others feeble attempts to cloud something that is so simple.

There was more than enough fodder at the June 10th Longmont City Council meeting having to do with the Twin Peaks Mall that it will probably take a couple of articles to cover. First, to the dynamic of the council members themselves. There is a perception, a fairly true one in my opinion, that there is a “bloc” of councilmembers, often referred to the “Benker Bloc” after Councilmember and Mayor Pro-Tem Karen Benker. Whenever one of these four members votes outside of the other three (the others being Councilmembers Levison, McCoy, and Hansen) you’ll hear their surrogate Kool-Aid drinkers point out their supposed “independence”. There was always hope that once they got in, reality would set in and these new councilmembers would become more objective and have a hard time constantly siding with their other like-minded members and show some independence. Especially when those other members are just wrong. But that’s assuming some honesty and decency exists there, an assumption some may not be willing to give. I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and have mentioned positive things they’ve said or done. That doesn’t mean truly ignorant comments don’t emanate from them once in a while, as they do.At this meeting, Karen Benker was consistent with her support of the Twin Peaks Mall and its redevelopment. I’ve read her comments about it in the paper, I’ve seen similar comments at City Council meetings and Mall citizen meetings. A comment was made on the Times Call website that this proves there is no “bloc”, which of course is hogwash, as one instance doth not make a pattern. It’s an example of where in this instance she’s just right, and the other three are just wrong.There is another dynamic, although I don’t believe it weighs heavily in Ms. Benker’s position on this, but should be considered: Ms. Benker is the only of these four to be up for re-election (or another run at Mayor) in 2009. The other three aren’t up until 2011. There’s some safety in the knowledge that if you royally screw up this Mall decision, you’re safe from the voters wrath for quite a while longer. By the way, all four of the councilmembers who have consistently voted in favor of the mall redevelopment are up for re-election in 2009. The three who have consistently voted against it aren’t up until 2011. I’m not one to call for re-calls, and I’ve been asked to be involved and turn those requests down. But this issue is a big one for Longmont, bigger to Longmont’s future than the Lifebridge development. If this is mishandled and derailed by a couple members of city council with an obvious agenda, they shouldn’t feel so safe in that full term if we see a boarded up fiasco where the mall sits. We’ll know exactly who’s to blame, and that is a cause I could get behind. Those that are up for re-election in 2009 take a considerable risk as more than likely at that time the mall area will be less than 50% redeveloped, and it could be a bunch of dirt and construction with little revenue generation. In other words what they call “black” (but I think they mean “dark”). It won’t be in the “black” for a while after that, but at least the public will see something going on, some hope for the future. Not this stalling, bleak, do-nothing, no plan plan that three of our councilmembers are adamant in shoving.In the next part, I’ll mention the disingenuous tactic of ” just wanting more answers” some are attempting when their questions are clearly agenda driven and the answers they get make absolutely no difference in their decision making. And of course their flat out misrepresentations of the truth to make a point.

For the record, I have no stake whatsoever in the following. I am not a landowner near this property, I am not a member of Lifebridge, nor do I speak for them or have ever been asked to. The proposal by Firestone’s Mayor Chad Auer in reference to Lifebridge Christian Church’s properties should be seriously considered and accepted without delay.

We’ve all been entertained by the antics for the last few months by some of your ” surrogate agitators and aggressors“, but the time for stalling and playing games is over. You have a decision to make and you can’t procrastinate any longer. This is what you were elected to do; take input and make policy. This deal is probably the absolute best you’re going to get; to pass on it would be foolish.

Six of the current seven councilmembers were involved in the recent elections of November and January. When you consider what “majority” you think you’re representing, keep in mind only three of you actually won with a majority ( Lange, McCoy, and Santos), one of you lost by a majority ( Benker in the mayors race) and the other two got in with less than a majority ( Hansen and Levison). Your decision, one way or the other, will bring out some citizens with pitchforks, figuratively, and you need to figure out which ones you’re willing to anger. Whatever political future you think you might have hangs in the balance, because this decision will affect Longmont for decades.

Personally, I think the landowners are giving away too much in this deal. They’ve been the target of slanderous and libelous attacks by some mouthpieces of certain councilmembers. These councilmembers and their attack dogs should be nervous about the recent Open Records request. There are limits to freedom of speech, and I’m willing to bet there are some shady backroom conversations certain people and councilmembers would rather keep out of the public eye. It’s probably too late for that, and I believe that if Longmont doesn’t take this deal, this so-called ” massive” open records request will be followed by a ” massive” lawsuit that Longmont can not afford, and will ultimately lose. In that scenario, all of us taxpayers are the losers.

The anti-annexation crowd didn’t want Lifebridge annexed into Longmont, this offer addresses that, and this group gets their wish. Longmont officials wanted a buffer; this offer addresses that as well. The only hitch is that Longmont has to come up with the money to buy this land as open space. None of you thought this would come for free, did you? This is prime real estate on Hwy 119, another reason I believe the landowners are giving away too much in this deal.

Longmont isn’t and hasn’t been dealing from a position of strength. It really doesn’t hold any cards and stand to lose much. The cute game of de-annexing and re-annexing, including certain roads with the goal of cutting off access to the landowners’ property, was a dirty trick and will cost the city at the county, state, and court levels if you allow this charade to continue. As strategies go, that was a bad move, and now it’s just about checkmate.

We all know some of you ran on, and had the backing of the anti-annexation movement. It’s become clearly evident that they were never just “anti-annexation” or looking out for what was “in it” for Longmont. They’ve followed and harassed the landowners from one city to another, then on to the county level, and have included in their attacks members of a church that has been part of this community for a century. This group has made it clear this church is no longer welcomed here, and the silence by some on council on this attack is tantamount to approval of this despicable behavior. Behavior, that by and large is by only a handful of people, and a small minority who signed the petition (which less than half voted for the anti-annexation candidate in January), yet council gives them the illusion that they are an actual majority of Longmont citizens, which they don’t come close to actually being.

My guess is that your attorneys and staff will suggest you accept this offer, regardless if you can afford the land in question or not. The impending lawsuit could be much more expensive in the long run, with no open space to show for it in the end, unlike with this offer. Some of you need to publicly divorce and disassociate yourselves with the vocal minority who has brought Longmont to this sad and unfortunate position. And do it quickly, you’ve stalled enough.

Anyone happen to catch tonights Longmont City Council meeting? Once again the simple task of choosing applicants for advisory boards descending into utter nonsense. How hard is this?

For the board in question, there were 4 applicants, and 3 positions: 2 primary and 1 alternate. The deadline was somewhere around 10 days ago, as a clear answer was not given by the City Clerk of when this was. So if you, like me, looked at the City Council agenda that came out last Friday, and every Friday before each meeting, there were the applications of the nominees.

It’s been the opinion of more than a few that our new majority on council is cherry picking candidates for these appointments. One of the applicants put on his application that his neighbor, Councilmember Karen Benker, was who advised him of this spot. Hmmm, okay, we’ll let that go for now.

So, councilmembers had a few days to consider the 4 applicants. But at the council meeting, Sean McCoy lets it be known that he and Brian Hansen have submitted 2 applicants of their own, AFTER THE DEADLINE! I bet you can see where this is going.

Councilmember Mary Blue had recused herself prior to this as she had a family member in the list of applicants. Gabe Santos brought up the point that one time he had put in an application for a board after the deadline and there was no special rule change or consideration for him, and there not should be one for these two applicants. So they put it to a vote: should council suspend the rules of the application deadline for these two applicants. Here’s where I think City Attorney Clay Douglas made a mistake: while Councilmember Blue was recused from the vote involving her relative, she should NOT have been recused from her vote on this change of rules. Do you want to guess how this vote went? Yeahs: Benker, Levison, McCoy, and Hansen.

So, not only does this out of control bloc blatantly disregard the rules that have been in place for I’d guess a long time, they make it so they can vote on it, and pass this questionable procedure. And no, they didn’t vote to change an ordinance or any resolutions, you know, the stuff that makes the rules they’re supposed to follow. They just wormed their way around it. Very democratic.

Lastly, want to guess who made the cut for this board? One of the primary members was the aforementioned Benker-invited nominee, the other was one of these late and very questionable additions. Councilmembers had all of maybe a few minutes to look at their applications, if that. Note to some councilmembers: when some people say you’re doing a great job, maybe they’re not talking about YOU specifically.

It’s too bad you can’t gamble in this country on politics. What, are people worried it might make politicians cheat? HAHAHAHA. That was a good one, sorry.

So we’re on the eve of a special election here in Longmont. One thing I’m glad to see is way more people jumping in than usual, whether it’s in the Open Forum of the Times-Call or websites and blogs. Lots going on, lots being said, how will it impact the final result? Again, I don’t mind if I’m wrong on a prediction, and since I already sort of made one earlier about this election, I’ll follow up on it.

I said that Gabe Santos would lose the November election, but win the special election. This was before anyone officially entered this latest race. Now let’s go through what’s different about this race, events that may have shifted things, etc.

Turnout: This is the great unknown and any prediction is tough not knowing how this will go. In November’s election 15,086 people voted for the at-large seat. Special elections tend to not bring out as many voters, at first I figured 80% of November’s turnout. But this cycle has been different, the Times-Call did a large story about this, and maybe the turnout will be about the same after all.

Candidates: In November’s election Santos received 6,319 votes, or 41.9% of the vote. Paul Tiger received 1,758 votes and is not running this time. I can’t see why someone who voted for Santos in November would change it now. Tiger endorsed Richard Juday, not sure how many people caught that, not sure if it matters to Libertarian voters, and not sure if it helps! (Sorry Paul, people like us don’t always help with our endorsements). So I gave 60% of Tigers votes to Juday. To give 100% of Sarah Levison’s votes to Juday though is a stretch and pretty presumptuous.

The DeLay Factor: Zip, nada, zero. The people that hate Tom DeLay probably weren’t going to vote for Santos anyway. The people who already voted for Santo’s or have no problem with DeLay may have been offended by this stretch of “guilt by association”. Even if you spot a couple hundred votes for this, which is a couple hundred too many, doesn’t affect the outcome.

“Attack” Ad: Apparently, some voters (supposedly just Republicans) got a mailer that wasn’t too friendly towards Juday. I seriously thought it was a hoax or someone trying to “punk” Juday and his supporters. But apparently it really went out. Oddly enough a quote supposedly from my website was on it. I can’t remember where I saw that, but I sure didn’t write that quote and it wasn’t ever on my site. Anyway, who does this ad help/hurt? Those that were going to vote for Juday anyway – this only reinforces their feelings, and they probably didn’t receive it anyway, only heard about it. Those that would lean against Juday – this would reinforce them also, and they probably did receive it if it only went out to one party. So, stalemate? I don’t think so.

In today’s Times-Call they talked about voters by party affiliation. Increased Republican turnout (those receiving these ads) is a bad thing for Juday. These may be people that didn’t vote in November, and also probably people that were not happy with Lifebridge’s treatment, courtesy of Juday and his supporters. Many of these people probably don’t want to be Boulder Jr. either. Like this ad or hate it, I don’t remember ever seeing anything quite like it for a Longmont election, and its impact could be huge.

Final Days: Also in today’s paper were some political ads and op-eds by Santos and Juday. Juday’s ad said “Please, before responding to attack material”…visit his website for solid information. His editorial was titled ” Longmont deserves better“, not sure if he titled it or the Times-Call. I know the point was to say elections shouldn’t be so dirty, but the title implies what Longmont has now (in council or anywhere else) sucks. Yeah, voters like hearing that, being blamed for any and all ills. Juday spent much of his piece being on the defensive, not where a candidate wants to be in the final stretch. Add to that voluntarily not accepting donations and returning checks a week before the election? While it may be noble, I guess, signs and advertisements take money. If there’s a perception a candidate is throwing in the towel (not saying he is), most voters want to vote for a winner, not someone who wraps up his campaign before Election Day.

Santo’s editorial was titled ” Longmont‘s community cares” and the contrast between these two messages and these two editorials are worth some votes. Perhaps a lot of votes. I’m sure some detractor can find something to pick apart in Santo’s editorial, but it was fairly positive from start to finish. Let’s just see their last paragraphs, remember, these are sort of the closing arguments, they matter: Juday: “On my website you may see some corrections to distributed misinformation”. Santos: “I’m inspired by what I see, and I wish to give it back. I believe I am the right choice for City Council. I respectfully ask for your vote. If you have already voted for me, please accept my most sincere thank you.” Hey, it was longer, take out a sentence or two to make it even. End result is the same.

Conclusion: Based on the previous election, possible turnout, candidates actions, advertising (good and bad), signage, money, and intangibles, let me throw out this prediction: Santos 7,333 (48.6%) / Juday 6,144 (40.7%) / Baxter 1,509 (10%) / Write-in 100 (0.7%). Knowing that prediction alone could drive a few people to get their voting butts in gear, and knowing I could be all wet on those numbers and outcomes, there it is. Yep, another plurality, not a majority. And if 595 votes swap, different outcome.

I’d like to see some thoughtful prognostication(s?) (in other words, spare the wishful thinking). No one’s prediction should be held against them, unless they turn out to be clairvoyant geniuses! Can’t gamble, but can have bragging rights – until the next election.

Different people in different ways make my work easier. Some people are outspoken, often offensive and abrasive. Then once in a while they screw up and try to bury it. Then other people, occasionally anonymously, do some of the footwork and get the information to me either directly or indirectly. I’m more than happy to be another outlet to get that information out to a wider audience. Nearly all of this latter group I’ve never met, emailed, or spoken to. And credit is deserved.

The people backing Richard Juday for City Council in this upcoming election are spending much of their time trying to smear opposing candidates. Yet at the same time they’re being very sneaky about hiding certain things their candidate has written in the past. The TakeBackLongmont website has been out in front defending against the smears on Gabe Santos, and has been blistering towards Mr. Juday in some of his comments conveniently removed from his website. You can find a link to a cached version of it at their website.

Another reader sent me a link to Mr. Juday’s Report of Contributions and Expenditures, click on it to read it, it’s public information. You’ll see some familiar names, including most of the often mentioned “bloc of 4” as already reported in the Times-Call. Oddly missing is an “in kind” contribution from the person who’s maintaining his website, or is that service free, or self administered? Only reason I ask is over these pages that were so abruptly pulled down. What was on the Science Vs Creationism page? Some of your potential voters might like to know.

(Pay attention Councilmembers Benker, McCoy, Levison, and Hansen, these questions are for you also, as you either accepted Mr. Judays support in your races, or have donated to his candidacy, or both. You can either respond publicly, or get repeatedly asked and publicly embarrassed. Remember the more open and listening council idea? Here’s to see if you really meant it.)

Mr. Juday wrote of big box stores and his obvious disdain for them, which is his right. But what he removed from his website was his idea, or approval of this: ” write down license numbers and trace them to residence” in reference to finding out who’s shopping where. Or having the customer report his city, if asked. He’s toned that down to its current version of ” recorded zip codes of shoppers.” So we have a choice of ” Big Box” or ” Big Brother” thanks to Mr. Juday and friends. Also, Mr. Juday needs to respond to whether he approved or encouraged the questionable practice of secretly videotaping signers of the Lifebridge anti-annexation petition. He proudly led his group to city hall with those petitions, if he’s the leader, he needs to answer. If I hear ” no big deal” over this, I can’t imagine the people being taped unknowingly would agree.

Here’s what it boils down to. Mr. Juday and his pals in and out of council don’t like places like Walmart, BestBuy, Costco (funny they don’t mention Target, quite a big box) and want to make it hard on them to do business. Not only that, they look down on you for shopping there and want to collect information on those of you that chose to go there, whatever your reason. This is NOT Longmont, at least not the Longmont I chose to move to. This is elitist thuggery and if Mr. Juday and those on council that lean with him don’t answer these important points, they should be held accountable, severely. And no answers equal agreement with these comments and actions.

I’m not asking you to vote for a particular candidate, but I am asking you NOT to vote for this candidate, Mr. Juday. If you have a problem with the new members of council over this, take it up with them, but they were already elected.

Sorry if the flurry of numbers and stats put you to sleep, but there were some misleading comments backing up an endorsement that I couldn’t let just slide by. Especially since in a previous blog entry delving into the numbers on the last election I already went through this, and I really hate repeating myself.

A former city councilmember, Tom McCoy, painted a picture of sore losers, a new generation of “Longmonters”, and a supposed mandate from the majority of voters. Now for those pesky facts. Only two races actually won a majority, Mayor Lange and oddly enough McCoy’s son Sean McCoy. The rest were pluralities, where as the winner did not break 50.1%, also known as a majority. Hey, I can’t help it if people don’t know the difference.

You know something else that’s not talked about a lot? 40,051 total votes were cast for Mayor and City Council members, the ” new generation of city councilpeople” McCoy speaks of received 18,453 votes. The other candidates received 21,598 votes. Now there’s a majority, 53.9% – 46.1%, a majority against Benker, Levison, McCoy, and Hansen. So where’s this so-called mandate? You won’t find it because it doesn’t exist. Nice try though.

So based on that ” fuzzy math” one should throw their full support behind Richard Juday, right? And apparently Longmont is about to become a player in the space industry as Mr. Juday could bring primary jobs here from his “fresh contacts” as a retired NASA employee. This would be funny if it wasn’t so offensive coming from a former councilmember who was no great friend to our aviation community.

Remember how I once wrote how some endorsements help, and others don’t? If you can make those numbers and statements justify your vote, then I guess you have your candidate.

From time to time I’ll run a letter submitted to me when the author asks that it be, or approves of it. I try to run things that are fairly unique and not rehashes of other peoples writings locally or nationally. This next letter fits that bill, whether you agree with it or not. I’m also a believer in “if someone has something better to say, and a better way of saying it, why copy or alter it?”